'Finding Bigfoot' star reveals close-up encounter on CBS 'Early Show' (VIDEO)

Matt Moneymaker, star of Animal Planet's hit reality series Finding Bigfoot, discloses a close-up encounter with a sasquatch, and gives his opinion on whether or not the creatures are related to humans.

Matt Moneymaker, star of Animal Planet’s hit reality show, Finding Bigfoot, revealed on the CBS Early Show that he has been within 15 feet of an actual bigfoot.

The existence of bigfoot has been rumored for, at minimum, decades, but Moneymaker, president and founder of the Bigfoot Field Researcher Organization, claims he has seen one of the elusive creatures up-close. Moneymaker claims he saw the bigfoot at close range in 1994, saying that it actually approached the team. They were in eastern Ohio, he said, in an area much like Appalachian terrain. Unfortunately, there were no pictures taken, no video. “We went in there to figure out where we were going to set up a surveillance camera,” he explained. “The thing came up and approached us,” he said.

More first-hand commentary from the 'Finding Bigfoot' team: 'Finding Bigfoot': Moneymaker, Holland speak out on sasquatch roundtable (VIDEO)

Moneymaker also said that, although they have not captured a bigfoot on camera on Finding Bigfoot, one came within about 50 feet of the crew and cast one night, even throwing rocks in its approach. “We’ll get them, no doubt,” he said confidently, referring to visuals of the animals on the show.

Moneymaker also cleared up a question that comes up often in the discussion of the creatures: It’s bigfoots, not bigfeet. “Bigfoots or sasquatches. Bigfeet would be what we have,” he joked.

With all of the technology available today, some wonder why no clear photo has been taken of the creatures if they exist, but Moneymaker said that it would be hard to take a clear photo or video of an animal that is typically running away from you. “You’re talking about an animal that will turn and run away. To get a clear picture of something, it has to hold still for awhile, out in the open, in daylight,” he said. “These things, if you’re close enough to see them in those conditions, they’ll see you. They’re usually never far from cover. They just don’t stand out in the open near a road in the day. So, if you spot one quickly, it will be running away probably too fast for you to even pull the camera out and point it.”

Is bigfoot man or animal? “Oh, animal,” Moneymaker said conclusively. “They’re a line of apes. They are not anything related to humans, in my opinion.”

Finding Bigfoot airs on Sunday night at 10 p.m. (ET) on Animal Planet.

UPDATED: Matt Moneymaker kicks off new Finding Bigfoot season with EXCLUSIVE interview with Huliq!

UPDATED: Does Finding Bigfoot team finally have DNA evidence?

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Video: CBS Early Show

Comments

Submitted by Gigglerazor/ GEO (not verified) on
Every epasode, they seem to say there is a squatch in these woods. It is so hard to beleave that it is true. I think they beleave every bump, whistle and screem is a squatch. Get some real evidence, and then share it on TV. This is my owen opinion. 25 years and all you have to show is, NOTHING that makes me beleave in you at all.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
No footage, pictures because they run away??? This guy if full of crap. What about bones? When it dies it can't run away anymore! Harry and the Hendersons was a great movie though.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
how many other animal bones do you find in the woods. It only takes about seven days for a deer to almost fully decompose and then scavergers take care of the rest. Anyone famliliar with forestry of anykind will tell you that remains do not last out in the wild for too long. The entire world thought that the Panda bear was extinct until one walked right out of the would one day.

Submitted by Gigglerazor/ GEO (not verified) on
This show is full of it. I just dont waist my time on watching it any longer. If I need to see anything about bigfoot, I will lool on the net. I hope his show gets droped. and put somthing more educational.

Submitted by Cat 1 (not verified) on
Speaking of education, learn how to spell.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
actually, there have been bones found, thighbones that appear to be from a small human giant. there are also way better video's on youtube than the crappy ones that the bfro investigates. another thing, moneymaker seems to be sure that bigfoots aren't related to humans. i strongly believe they are, i mean, they are bipedal, they throw rocks, they scream, some reports even claim they talk to each other(i know none of these things are proven, but i like to keep an open mind and kinda trust the thousands of reports). and we know for sure that our early ancestors lived in small, close groups of 10 to 15 'people', and they already burried their dead, so maybe bigfoots do the same. and last, even if there were bodies in the woods, its easier to find a needle in a haystack than to find pieces of a decomposing body that's been eaten by coyotes. and if we're talking about a yeti, the bodies would be covered in snow in a matter of minutes, and even if they weren't, they're white, cold primate bodies lying in white snow

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Thats fine, if you believe that bigfoot exists, I have no problem with that, everyone I guess needs a little mystery in their lives. But, how can you base what you believe on rumors? Every piece of evidence that is found eventually turns out to be a hoax or mis-identification of a known animal. Example: thighbones that appear to be from a small human giant?, how do they appear to be from a "small" human "giant"? I would think that a "small giant" would just be a person of average height. I do have an open mind about this, if they exist, then fine, if someone proves it, I will be the first to admit I was wrong and do what I can to help protect that species. As for being related to humans, absolutely not, evolution is just another hoax, if apes evolved into humans they would still be doing so and there would be thousands of examples of live apes in various stages of evolving. As for dead bodies, true they may be hard to find, but, as many people as there are who spend time in the forests these days, someone would have found something by now, if even by accident. I think science is better off searching for a cure for cancer or something useful like that, (a known monster) than wasting time looking for some giant monkey, even if one is found, I mean, so what, six months later no one will care, except of course Matt Monkeychaser, cause he will have to chase some other myth then, maybe Nessie?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Apes didn't evolve into humans. Humans and apes share a common ancestor species, like rats, squirrels and beavers share a common rodent-like ancestor.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Spoken like a true believer....No body nor bones recognized by any science. It appears as if you taake the National Tattler a little too seriously there Einstein.Videos are hoaxed.Moneymaker doesn;t know squat and throws the paranormal reports in the garbage which according to Thom Powell number in the hundreds. These things are spirits and all of the Native Americans know it.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
In the meantime, you can learn to freakin spell, non-believer! Must be a teenager!

Submitted by Gigglerazor/ GEO (not verified) on
so what if i dont know how to spell. it is rilly not your problem. so dont make it yours. stay on the subject.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Yours is no evidence.

Submitted by Gigglerazor/ GEO (not verified) on
I was talking about the show, these guys have no clue on what they are looking for. I think that they are full of crap. Not saying that there are or not Bigfoot's. It is these idots that are looking for them and then go on TV aand say that there is a squatch in these woods. look at the soup this week. the one guys long life dream was to have a monky chimp or whatever in the woods with him. OMG what an idot. And to the lady on the show RUN. lol

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Learn how to spell!!!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
remember this one fact when we make fun of all the bigfoot hype, i have over 20 years military experience and know the woods, dessert, forest, mountains pretty well, and having never seen a bigfoot, I have sure seen enough credible evidence to think that a large gorilla type (gigantopithicus) may be out there, the native american tribes have many stories of these creatures, and they are seen in China, himalayas, Canada, etc. Yes! I would love to see a body, but the dna samples say unknown primate, so is it clearly impossible for these large animals to not be extinct in 2012.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
You have no credibility. Woods or no woods. No bodies, no evidence, no peer review. Your spook sure is good at fooling you idiots.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
They never existed so how can they be extinct, this figment of peoples imaginations is NOT the now extinct Gigantopithecus. What dna samples are you people talking about ? I've been asking that question on here for 2 years and no one can answer because you all take it as fact that some nut somewhere says there are dna samples that say unknown primate. There are no dna samples that have been taken from this alleged mega monkey. If you believe that you have now or ever seen "credible" evidence of the existence of bigfoot, you have spent way too much time alone in the woods, dessert, forest, mountains etc. Your military experience (which I thank you for, by the way) and how well you know the forest has absolutely no bearing on whether or not such an animal exists. Yes they are seen in China, Canada etc. everyone wants in on the hype, if they are so readily seen everywhere by so many people, why are there no good photos, videos, dead bodies, etc. People waste their lives, their money, their time, damage their reputations and credibility chasing this myth, it's senseless and pointless. The Native American tribes have no stories about bigfoot, sasquatch or yeti, look up Native American legends on the net, you will not find even one legend of bigfoot, sasquatch or yeti. The bigfoot hunters use Native American legends and folklore in an attempt to add validity to their pointless adventures. PLEASE read some of the Native American legends and you will see that these are nothing more than tall tales told by the tribes story tellers. Bigfoot does not exist any more than the Easter bunny or Santa Claus exists. Any arguments you have, I'm certain I have already answered, just look for all posts marked "NOT Finding Bigfoot"

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Great posting, you thank me for my service then tell me i am an idiot, i have plenty of time in all these terrains, and know what dies grows and lives. this is only opinion and i believe the many credible military personnel who have seen and heard things that defy explanation. We dont spend alone time training to protect Americans, we cover eachother by doctrine to avoid little insults like you stuck into your post, but you are free to do so, just be careful when you talk down to people. We are experts in all this terrain because it is our job and you insult me with your big time post as if i have the time to give in to it. I have many other things to worry about, but I have spoken to Natives and they do speak of these creatures, whether they are lying or not may be the question, it just cracks me up the vitriol of the denial class that cannot disprove that they dont exist, just like the new species of chimp discovered a few years back.Take care and read Krantz and Munns Report and also Jane Goodalls comment that there may be an undiscovered ape somewhere. Remember Sir, this is just a discussion and opinions, not right and wrong.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
it seems like every little thing he finds,sees or hears he is sure its a bigfoot.Every noise he hears at night in the woods he says is a squatch and id someone on the team disagrees with him he gets upset with them.he definately is not open minded at all

Submitted by Tess in Long Island (not verified) on
If you truly think there is a bigfoot out there........ and all these years dont have any evidence, dont have any form of protection on you in case some "squash" comes out after you in the middle of the night in the middle of the woods, and YOU dont set up cameras all over 10 miles within the area you guys keep saying "there are squashes in these woods" then to me - you guys are just a bunch of money hungry television men making up some story so you can keep your show going....... If there are sasquashes out there,, put up a whole bunch of cameras and bait the land............ then we can see if one truly exists -- otherwise you just wanting some SHOW that pays your mortgages.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
I would just like to know why you don't just set up motion cameras for a length in time in areas where they have been spotted.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
The problem with motion cameras is that they only take photos of what is directly in front of them, which is about a 45 to 60 degree range of motion, and when you consider the vast size of a forest it would be tough to get a quality photo of any animal let alone a creature that has remained undetected for this long. Its like pointing a telescope at the moon and trying to see stars.

Submitted by Tess in Long Island (not verified) on
set a camera in some tree and hang a deer a foot or two away from camera -- very simple

Submitted by Tess in Long Island (not verified) on
set a camera in some tree and hang a deer a foot or two away from camera -- very simple

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
when the bfro hasn't found any good evidence in about 5 years, i'll check all the 'finding bigfoot shows', check every cluster of sightings, and set a trap right in the middle of them. not a killing trap, i'd just put some camouflaged(incase they are highly intelligent, you never know :p) camera's in the trees that are motion sensored, next i'd put a dead rabbit near every camera and i'd spray some primate feromones around the camera's. that'll lure them in. i guess it's even possible to become friends with one, if you have a lot of contact with one specific bigfoot

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Be sure to post all of the photos on Utube of Matt & Bobo walking around sniffing the lures and making Bigfoot tracks.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
You think you're the only idiot that ever thought of this??????

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Rigging a trap, putting lure in front of it, tacking automatic camera's on trees: That won't help you find a squatch. What's much more effective is running around in the woods at night, shouting like a bigfoot now and then, with a night-vision camera contraption on your back which films your panicking face in close-up eerie green light. Wait! Did you hear that! That's definately a squatch!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
when the bfro hasn't found any good evidence in about 5 years, i'll check all the 'finding bigfoot shows', check every cluster of sightings, and set a trap right in the middle of them. not a killing trap, i'd just put some camouflaged(incase they are highly intelligent, you never know :p) camera's in the trees that are motion sensored, next i'd put a dead rabbit near every camera and i'd spray some primate feromones around the camera's. that'll lure them in. i guess it's even possible to become friends with one, if you have a lot of contact with one specific bigfoot

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
you act as if there were enough there...you;d actually see one. come on...this show was SO fake..it is laughable......

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
On one of the shows that I saw years back, someone had set up several wildlife camera's in an area that there was supposed to be BigFoot activity. After the second day, All of the camera's had something placed in front of the lens so that it could not take pictures of what was in front of it. They later discovered that the camera's were emitting a very low pitch noise that we could not hear but the animals could. They showed the leaves and other items being placed in front of the "hidden" Camera's as it happened, you could tell that it was done slow and with purpose.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Why would Bigfoot need to block the lens? Bigfoot emits a very low pitch noise that causes any camera to take out of focus blurry pictures.

Submitted by theyrgeniuses (not verified) on
so now the bigfoots are smart enough to know what a trail camera is and smart enough to cover the lense so it wont take a picture and make the low pitch noise.......way to funny

Submitted by Victor (not verified) on
That would be the smart thing to do,but that would do nothing but prove it's in their heads,lol.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
These things are a spiritual\paranormal phenomenon. No can do.

Submitted by Moderate (not verified) on
I wish responders would learn to spell. It's actually painful to read some of these. BTW, I think there's a possibility that something is out there.

Submitted by Gigglerazor/ GEO (not verified) on
BTW. (FYB) cant spell that to you but finger it out (SMILE)

Submitted by Tess in Long Island (not verified) on
lol..........maybe its a bigfoot typing the responses ............

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
That is the most clever response i have seen on here. THANKS FOR THE LAUGH

Submitted by Tess in Long Island (not verified) on
lol..........maybe its a bigfoot typing the responses ............

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
There has never been one shred of credible evidence to even suggest that this creature exists. And, how did these knuckleheads ever get this show aired on t.v. anyway? They have nothing to show, just a bunch of jackasses tramping through the woods at night. The show should have been called NOT Finding Bigfoot.

Submitted by Gigglerazor/ GEO (not verified) on
totaly agree, they should just cansel the show.

Submitted by Ray (not verified) on
I totally agree with you guys, I dont care if you cant spell but you are right and yeah they should drop the show or change the name to "chasing wild animals BUT bigfoot" It is ridiculous! All these years and not one solid piece of evidence, technology wont let people lie now a days!

Submitted by Ray (not verified) on
Its funny how people want something thats not real to exist and most of the so called evidence this dude is talking about is just like youtube trash, DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON TV! or the net, we all know alot of it its "FAKE" mr. educated, educate yourself on more reliable facts, but all this blog is very fun, congratulations to this sensational site!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Those who claim, "where are the bones," I ask, where are the chimp bones in America? Answer: There are none. So, I gues chimps aren't real either. How many bears bones have you came across lately. I know, I know, bear bones are out there, but considering there are millions of bears, their skeletal remains are extremely rare. As far as "not one shred of evidence" WRONG. DNA evidence, (hair, etc.) has already been discovered. However; the DNA is currently listed as "unknown primate" or "unknown origin" because there is no sasquatch body to compare it too. Tons of tracks with dermal ridging (can't be hoaxed) a few good pic's and videos. Way to much evidence found in remote places to ignorantly blurt, "fake" or "hoax" for every case. If a person plans to fake something, they will usually do it near a place where people are likely to see it. You need to read up on the topic and educate yourself. Most people who holler out, "fake" have no idea about the real, tangible, undeniable evidence. Only theories, ideas, and preconceived notions.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
I don't need to see chimp bones or bear bones to know they exist because I have seen bears and chimps. And, where is this DNA evidence? do you have a credible website or book or anything that I can look at to see this DNA that is currently listed as "unknown primate"? As far as pics and videos, there are no good ones, only out of focus, blurry, grainy images that do not remotely prove anything. Foot prints can be and are faked with or without dermal ridges. If a person wants to fake something, it doesn't matter where they place it, since they are the ones that "find" the evidence. You need to educate yourself, there is no real, tangible, undeniable evidence. Only theories, ideas, and preconceived notions.

Submitted by why not (not verified) on
The fact that teeth and jaw bones of Gigantopithecus do exist have me leaning toward there is a living primate in the woods. There is so much wilderness that have few people in it to have an experience with one makes scense to me that encounters and evidence are rare. Most if not all Indian tribes have a name and claim of existance of these things tells me they probably are there. Its easier to say they dont exist than they do because there is no body. Its tough to get a body because of the environment its said they inhabit. I dont see any reason for such an animal not to exist.

Submitted by why not (not verified) on
The fact that teeth and jaw bones of Gigantopithecus do exist have me leaning toward there is a living primate in the woods. There is so much wilderness that have few people in it to have an experience with one makes scense to me that encounters and evidence are rare. Most if not all Indian tribes have a name and claim of existance of these things tells me they probably are there. Its easier to say they dont exist than they do because there is no body. Its tough to get a body because of the environment its said they inhabit. I dont see any reason for such an animal not to exist.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Gigantopithecus is said to have lived from roughly one million years to as recently as three hundred thousand years ago, and they found teeth and jawbones from this animal in 1935, so why can't anyone find any modern ones? They have also found Tyrannosaurus bones but that doesn't mean there are any still living in the woods today. Yes there are many Native American legends and myths about a big hairy forest man, but have you ever read any of the legends? you can find them online if you're interested, they are more like tall tales than factual accounts. You are correct that there is no reason for such an animal not to exist, but at the same time there is not one shred of credible evidence to suggest that it does.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
People HAVE seen sasquatches its just that everybody is too frikin busy tearing everybody down to even consider that they have actually seen a sasquatch

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
I've listened to every eye witness account that I've seen on t.v. and all I can find online, and I stand by my original statement that, "there is not one shred of credible evidence". I am sorry if anyone views my comments as a personal attack, but if people are going to air bigfoot shows, post bigfoot footage or photos online, or give eye witness accounts, knowing how contoversial the subject is already, then at least have clear in focus stable video clips, clear in focus still photo's and don't tell me that bigfoot came and knocked on the door and asked for garlic as one eye witness stated. With modern auto focus cameras and video recorders even a 5 year old can take excellent photos and videos, so why can't these bigfoot chasers EVER get a good video or still picture?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Sorry dude, but the BFRO has thousands of eyewitness accounts in their data bank. They are one of several online website with eyewitness account info. No way you read them all. Also, how could thousands of people be in on a world wide hoax. Especially when these people have no common thread. Ex. friends, co-workers, etc. It doesn't add up to simply dismiss every account. Further, the average uninformed person believes that getting pictures of wild animals is a simple task. Unlike the curious young deer who will stand and gawk at someone with a camera, most predators (coyote, fox, cougar) will bolt away at the sound of a human being. With todays expensive video cameras that immediately attempt to auto-focus, this creates a nightmare for an unstaged video of a moving object. Thus, the grainy, horrible videos we see. Any true woodsman knows that large animals are very cunning and easily evade the average person. Most sasquatch/bigfoot sightings are not expected. Usually they are from people who have no knowledge or interest in the subject. They are definately not prepared to video nor do they usually process what they have witnessed until a few minutes after it has happened.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
What is your point sorry dude? Are you telling me that the average American is too stupid to operate a simple point and shoot camera? And that he does'nt know what he's filming or why he's filming it until a few minutes after the film is shot? A "true woodsman" knows that every type of animal and bird in existance large and small, no matter how cunning a predator it is, has been photographed (and in focus I might add) and have been captured or killed and mounted on walls. I wont even comment on Matt Moneymaker's BFRO eyewitness accounts, other than this, In November 2005, a video purportedly showing a bigfoot in Sonoma County, California, surfaced on the Internet. The BFRO quickly declared that it was an authentic video, and that it could not have been a man in a suit. It later transpired that the Sonoma Video had been a hoax perpetrated by none other than Penn & Teller for their Showtime television series "Bullshit!" BFRO director Matt Moneymaker declared that Penn & Teller were lying in order to boost ratings. The BFRO had no comment on the video following the broadcast of the show. AND In late 2003 the BFRO changed direction dramatically and started promoting fee-based weekend "expeditions," which proved to be controversial. The first expedition was called the "Bigfoot Roundup" and initially fetched a $1,400 per person price tag. Places were even auctioned on eBay with the promise that you could ride alongside Bob Gimlin. By 2007 the cost of the weekend expeditions had dropped to $400 per vehicle. Internal controversies resulting directly and indirectly from the continued emphasis on "expeditions" led to a deterioration of confidence and support within the membership. By late summer 2005, scores of the organization's most experienced members had resigned, including many of the most prominent scientists and researchers investigating the bigfoot/sasquatch phenomenon.

Submitted by Ray (not verified) on
Ha ha ha! Excellent comment sir, EDUCATE ON THAT! my God I doubt you got a response for that!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
I am in no way implying that the average person can't use a camera or video recorder. On the contrary, you have kinda touched on the point I was trying to make. Companies who produce/sale this type of equipment cater to the masses when it comes to affordability. Most people do not need, nor can they afford professional grade cameras and video equipment. The average "high end" video camera has user friendly operation commands that allows everyone who can read to learn how to easily operate it. Auto focus is a prime example of one of these features. Although this features is great for its intended use (family gatherings, Christmas dinners, birthdays, etc.) this feature was never intended for wildlife photographers. On the other hand, professional wildlife photographers do not use this type of equipment. The pictures are poor, and very blurry when attempting to quickly "point and shoot" at moving animals in the wild. Usually, the camera/video cam. will focus on the foreground (trees, bushes) and almost blur out whatever the photographer was hoping to capture. If you research any literature produced by professional wildlife photographers, you will find that 99.9% of all wildlife thay photograph for magazines, calanders, etc. are taken from within enclosures or zoos. The reason, the animals are very elusive in the wild, they don't cooperate with the camera, they often run when seen by the photographer, and it takes way, way to much time to get a professional grade photo of a truly "wild" animal. As far as people going on the guided bigfoot hunts for loads of money. I agree, there are some real scam artist in the bigfoot industry. But, there are scam artists always looking to make a buck every where. Many, many people pay to go on "safaris" with their family for a load of money. They set in an air conditioned vehicle and drive around looking for animals that are in an enclosure. Although most will not admit it, or maybe they are not aware of it, but the majority of people do not venture off into the woods. Those who do, may only go for a short distance.

Submitted by gary (not verified) on
Chimp bones in America? Possibly because there are no monkeys indigenous to North America......oh and I loved the answer by an earlier poster...chimps that live in the woods don't produce bones..............well thank you Mr Science.......I didn't realize there were "boneless chimps" ....and WHY have I not seen them on the menu at Buffalo Wild Wings ???? Moneymaker is a great actor.......amazing when a grown man says over and over.......I have spent 25 years investigating these things,,,,.........like that is supposed to give him credibility ..........got news for ya Matt.....................it doesn't......... Science is based on fact, research , data, and hard evidence. Moneymaker produces none.....and has yet to even prove a single..........According to Matt and crew.........they basicaly find one every week.....every where they go ......so , WHY do they leave? Why not take ALL these "verified " sightings......and close in and actually PROVE the creature exists....???? Well, maybe they don't want to prove it.......I mean ....if they do .....then they are just like bear of deer......elusive , yes.......but not a mystery anymore... Moneymaker know mystery sells.....and he is riding the Bigfoot rain til it derails......which for me was after watching the first episode......when EVERY sound, every twitch , every noise, was by default....a Bigfoot.........incredibly funny. If Moneymaker believed in Unicorns........I guess every noise woudl be a unicorn as well........lol.....go figure....

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Funny, you say you have seen a bear so you know they are real. Thousands of people (credible people I might add-lawyers, doctors, judges, law enforcement) would argue that they have saw a sasquatch. I haven't every witnessed a cheetah in the wild so i guess they are not real either. By the way, who can hoax a large primate track with a mid-tarsal break and dermal ridges that are completely non-human yet exactly like a gorilla? When experts in the field of anatomy say, "this is definately not a hoax" then who are we to argue that they are liars? If the courts and the scientific community recognize these people as credible then why are they lieing? As fars as books, and who/what/where is the evidence. You validate my point. You have never attempted to educate yourself on the subject. Only give uneducated opinions. I do not mean that in an offensive way. If I have not researched a subject, I am not really qualified to give an opinion into the specifics of the subject.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Why do you all keep telling me to educate myself? It's clear that none of you pro bigfooters are doing any research on the subject, you only educate yourselves on the pro bigfoot side, stating as fact things that are not factual. For example you state as a fact that the scientific community recognize's these witnesses as credible. But the fact is that The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature. In a 1996 USA Today article titled "Bigfoot Merely Amuses Most Scientists", Washington State zoologist John Crane says, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented." In addition to the lack of evidence, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized nonhuman apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia. Furthermore, great apes are not found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains have ever been found. Indeed, scientific consensus is that the breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility. There have been a limited number of formal scientific studies of Bigfoot or Sasquatch, the supposed ape-like creature said to live in North America. While a few scientists have examined the evidence, "the subject is not considered an area of credible science"(Intelligent Design: by Robert B. Stewart) and supposed evidence like the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film have "no supportive data of any scientific value."(Bigfoot exposed: by David J. Daegling). Also, the vast majority of biologists, anthropologists and paleontologists completely dismiss the possibility of the existence of sasquatch.

Submitted by why not (not verified) on
they probably called people idiots who said they seen mountain gorillas and when they were discovered in the 70's they ate their words. No photos no bones no evidence then wow there they are. Im saying I cant say anything to convince a non believer 'cause i have no proof but is it asking much for an open mind? It is possible and I believe probable.

Submitted by Ray (not verified) on
Dude, this uneducated guy just smoked your behind WITH FACTS! Go get a little more educated and then come back to eat your own words...IT DOESNT EXIST!

Submitted by why not (not verified) on
It as if there is just one ? lol thats an educated response. You dont exist no dna evidence,,,except whats on your hand.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Same recycled information quoted by the same people all the time. If you are going to quote someone as a reliable source, you better find out a little about that source. What new facts have been presented? I guess that a guy who works out of the trunk of his car (this Rene guy being quoted by your buddy) is considered a more reliable source that Dr. J. Meldrum, Dr. G. Krantz, Jane Goodall, who by the way is universally recognized as the world leading expert on primates, etc. etc. etc. I am quoting information that has been researched/confirmed by professionals. I realize that you can use "weekend warrior" researchers as sources, but the experts in anatomy, primates, etc. will be recognized as more credible by unbiased, third party people.

Submitted by Ray (not verified) on
I think we can probably find santa easier than you can find bigfoot, why dont we ask moneymaker or bull s*tmaker to go find him and get the law enforcement officer and the "educated" guy to help him look for santa and charge on a hunt for santa expedition, and have all the believers watch the reality show, now that would be a hit for all the believers, man.....this guy is funny, how long ago have they been looking for "bigfeet" and nobody has found the damed chimp on the loose, if they found Osama bin laden and it didnt took them that long to kill the bastard why cant they find this illusive chimp, uhhh let me guess...he is more clever! Dude get a real hobbie, ohh on the meanwhile I will go get more educated ha ha!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
It's been about 45 years since the Patterson - Gimlin film, and since then people have been out in droves looking for bigfoot, mountains of "evidence" have allegedly been found but still no bigfoot. Exactly how long does it take to find a 9 foot tall 400 pound monkey that leaves mountains of evidence? (apparently more than 45 years) This critter has apparently done everything but put up a neon sign that says "This Way To Bigfoot's Hide Out", but still, no bigfoot.

Submitted by Nick (not verified) on
Like most Bigfooters you have not researched the subject . Mountain gorillas were discovered in 1902 by Robert von Beringe

Submitted by Nick (not verified) on
Like most Bigfooters you have not researched the subject. Mountain gorillas were discovered in 1902 by Robert von Beringe.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Negative on that assumption. You do seriously need to educate yourself. I am not a professional bigfooter. On the contrary, I am in professional law enforcement and I collect fingerprints, plastercasts, blood samples, etc. The average hoaxer can't hoax a dermal ridge. Sorry. Read and educate yourself on the techniques, not about bigfoot itself. Afterward, read some of the literature availiable about bigfoot by Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz, etc. I know their work is real because I am certified in the techniques that they speak about. Ignorance is bliss. But ignorance, is just that, ignorance.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Well I guess you got me officer, Bigfoot does exist, how could I have been so foolish as to allow myself to be blinded by all of these pesky facts? When all I had to do is hear from you, just think, I could have been living in a fantasy world all of these years. I understand your want or need to believe in the mythical bigfoot, there is nothing wrong with that, and I'm not trying to take that away from you, after all, when I was a kid I used to believe in Santa Claus. Hey, here's an idea, why doesn't someone do a show called Finding Santa Claus? And by the way, do you think that because you say you are in professional law enforcement, that makes you automatically credible? Negative on that assumption! So why don't you go educate yourself. (Also Mr. intelligent, to be pro bigfoot means that you believe in bigfoot)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
Hey man, not intended to arrest you. Only pointing out facts about arguments posted. If a qualified expert in anatomy finds a track "no doubt about it, this is a track from a bear once thought to be extinct"" I am sure that everyone (including you) would agree w/o debate. If the same person says, "This track appears to be from a creature thought to be bigfoot. I base these finding on the clear and concise dermal ridging with the defined midtarsal break." These same people, (including you obviously) would squeal, "idiot," "fool," or "liar" this is an obvious hoax from a wooden cut out print. That is why guys like me usually do not ask advice from guys like you about things you have no real knowledge of. I am sure you have plently of knowledge about video games and MTV, but I do not. Just because I don't play games and I think MTV is silly, that doesn't qualify me to attempt to make educated comments on something I am clearly not qualified to make educated comments on. Why? Because I am not educated on the topic. You have a right to make an uninformed comment, but that is all the weight an uninformed comment is. Essentially it means nothing. I will not even waste time lisiting the volumes of real data that has been collected and documented on the subject of sasquatch. If you truly wanted to know, you would have already researched and found it for yourself. By the way, a court of law will deem me (or you for that matter) an "expert" witness on a subject matter if I can produce the certifications to prove that I am an expert. Example, I have numerous certifications in evidence collection. IE: This makes me an expert. You on the other hand have played video games all night and watched MTV marathons while making silly comments about things you know nothing about. That makes you: not an expert.

Pages

Add new comment